Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 18/615,738

IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 25, 2024
Priority
Mar 29, 2023 — JP 2023-053302
Examiner
VALENCIA, ALEJANDRO
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
RISO KAGAKU Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
43%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
49%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 43% of resolved cases
43%
Career Allowance Rate
594 granted / 1391 resolved
-25.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
161 currently pending
Career history
1528
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
55.0%
+15.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1391 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claim Objections Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the color of the cloth” and “the cloth” lack antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the characteristic information image” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aritomi et al. (9524,452) in view of Otani (2024/0254358). Regarding claims 1, 6 and 7, Aritomi teaches an image processing apparatus, method and non-transitory readable storage medium comprising a processor (fig. 1, item 3000) being configured to extract characteristic information of a printed material corresponding to a base material (fig. 4, paper) used for printing using color ink (col. 2, line 50, note that all inkjet printers use color ink) and a printing condition of the printing (fig. 10, print density) and to generate a characteristic information image (fig. 11) representing the extracted characteristic information (fig. 11), wherein the characteristic information image indicates numerical values (fig. 11, note numerals) of the characteristic information corresponding to a plurality of printing conditions (see fig. 11). Aritomi does not teach wherein the printer is configured to print with pretreatment liquid and white ink in addition to color ink, wherein the printing condition includes: a ratio of the amount of pretreatment liquid and the amount of base ink. Otani teaches printing with pretreatment liquid, a white ink as a base ink and wherein a processor extracts characteristic information including a ratio of pretreatment liquid to white base ink, a material and color of a cloth and evaluated characteristics of the printed product of the cloth (Otani, [0162]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the print density calibration technique disclosed by Aritomi to the printing device disclosed by Otani because doing so would amount to substituting a more sophisticated calibration technique for a less sophisticated one, thereby allowing for more precise calibration. Regarding claim 2, Aritomi in view of Otani teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic information image is a test print image printed by test printing (Aritomi, see fig. 11). Regarding claim 3, Aritomi in view of Otani teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor present a condition selection image and corresponding to the plurality of the printing conditions to a user, and generate the test print image corresponding to the plurality of printing conditions selected by the user (Aritomi, see condition selection image of figure 10 and test image of figure 11). Regarding claim 4, Aritomi in view of Otani teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor presents a plurality of the recommended printing conditions to a user, and generates the characteristic information image corresponding to one or more of the plurality of printing conditions selected by the user (Aritomi, fig. 10, Note “Standard”) Regarding claim 5, Aritomi in view of Otani image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic information includes at least one of fastness to washing and white density (Asano, [0141]-[0147], Note that the density of white ink to be deposited on the substrate is necessarily extracted by the processor). Regarding claim 8, Aritomi in view of Otani image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the base material is a fabric (Otani, [0162]). Regarding claim 9, Aritomi in view of Otani image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic information corresponds to the material and the color of the cloth of the base material and the printing condition (Otani, [0162], Note that the hardness and color of the cloth are taken into account). Regarding claim 10, Aritomi in view of Otani image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic information image includes respective guide for at least two conditions selected from the group consisting of white density, fastness to washing, fastness to rubbing, texture, and cost (Otani, [0162], Note that whiteness and hardness, i.e., texture, of the cloth are included. Note also that “guides” has not been defined in any particular way). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 1 earlier event
Oct 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Dec 08, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 08, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 12, 2026
Response Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Mar 16, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 31, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12752537
LIQUID EJECTION DEVICE CONTROL METHOD AND LIQUID EJECTION DEVICE
3y 6m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12741466
WIPER UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12734799
SUBSTRATE TREATING CONTROL METHOD, SUBSTRATE TREATING APPARATUS, SUBSTRATE TREATING METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM STORED IN COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM FOR TREATING SUBSTRATE
4y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12734815
CARTRIDGE AND PRINTING APPARATUS
3y 6m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12734830
LIQUID EJECTION DEVICE AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING LIQUID EJECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
43%
Grant Probability
49%
With Interview (+6.2%)
3y 0m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1391 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month